On 24/02/2015 14:27, Rainer Jung wrote:
> Am 24.02.2015 um 14:28 schrieb Mark Thomas:
>> On 24/02/2015 13:15, Rainer Jung wrote:
>>> Am 24.02.2015 um 14:09 schrieb [email protected]:
>>>> Author: markt
>>>> Date: Tue Feb 24 13:09:26 2015
>>>> New Revision: 1661932
>>>>
>>>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/r1661932
>>>> Log:
>>>> Reduce Gump's OpenSSL failures from 31 to 29
>>>>
>>>> Modified:
>>>>
>>>> tomcat/trunk/test/org/apache/tomcat/util/net/jsse/openssl/TesterOpenSSL.java
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Modified:
>>>> tomcat/trunk/test/org/apache/tomcat/util/net/jsse/openssl/TesterOpenSSL.java
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> URL:
>>>> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/tomcat/trunk/test/org/apache/tomcat/util/net/jsse/openssl/TesterOpenSSL.java?rev=1661932&r1=1661931&r2=1661932&view=diff
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ==============================================================================
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ---
>>>> tomcat/trunk/test/org/apache/tomcat/util/net/jsse/openssl/TesterOpenSSL.java
>>>>
>>>> (original)
>>>> +++
>>>> tomcat/trunk/test/org/apache/tomcat/util/net/jsse/openssl/TesterOpenSSL.java
>>>>
>>>> Tue Feb 24 13:09:26 2015
>>>> @@ -35,6 +35,7 @@ public class TesterOpenSSL {
>>>>        public static final Set<Cipher> OPENSSL_UNIMPLEMENTED_CIPHERS =
>>>>                Collections.unmodifiableSet(new HashSet<>(Arrays.asList(
>>>>                        Cipher.TLS_DHE_DSS_WITH_RC4_128_SHA,
>>>> +                    Cipher.SSL2_DES_64_CBC_WITH_MD5,
>>>>                        Cipher.SSL_CK_RC2_128_CBC_WITH_MD5,
>>>>                        Cipher.SSL_FORTEZZA_DMS_WITH_NULL_SHA,
>>>>                        Cipher.SSL_FORTEZZA_DMS_WITH_FORTEZZA_CBC_SHA,
>>>
>>> OK, so if that is the way to fix, I can fix some more cases if you want
>>> to keep your brain busy with the really hard problems ;)
>>
>> Thanks for the offer. My brain is enjoying the break :)
>>
>> If you could double check what I am doing that would be great. I've
>> thought I've fixed this a couple of times already only to mess it up so
>> an extra pair of eyes would be very helpful.
> 
> The remaining failures are ordering issues. If is sort the list of
> ciphers which are compared in testSpecification() before comparing them,
> all tests succeed. But of course ordering in ciphers is relevant.

+1. I've just tracked down the source of the bug and fixed it. Now to
see if the next set of Gump runs agree...

Mark


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]

Reply via email to